The always useless No Fact Just Pork, weighed in on the Bully Boy's 2003 State of the Union address. Since we're addressing Plamegate this edition, we thought we might Fact Check the lazy and stupid:
The famous "16 words" in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A basis in fact? Only to the brain dead and right-wing leaning, supposed non-partisan No Facts Just Pork.
If one was going to defend the Bully Boy's lie, one might think of pointing to the Butler report or the Senate Intelligence Committee Report -- if one was really stupid. If one was stupid, dumb and right-leaning, one might point to both. No Facts Just Pork is all that more, they note both reports.
Why would only the stupid go for that? Both reports mention a possibility in 1999. 1999. Though we won't accuste No Facts Just Pork of being illiterate, we will note that they have severe comprehension problems.
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
That speech took place on Januaray 28, 2003. Was 1999 recent? Bully Boy wasn't even occupying the White House in 1999. Only the really stupid would let that pass. The whole lies to war were built upon scaring Americans. If Bully Boy had stated: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein may sought significant quantites of uranium from Africa in 1999" the general reaction would have been, "That's like four years ago!"
It didn't rise to the level of alarm. So the lie was sexed-up further. And only an idiot could 'fact check' the above and state that there was "no lie."
[Note: On the supposed findings of the Senate Intel Committee report, Robert Parry's "Smearing Joe Wilson, Again" notes it best: "The Post's accusation about Wilson "falsely" claiming to have debunked the yellowcake reports apparently is based on Wilson’s inclusion in his report of speculation from one Niger official who suspected that Iraq might be interested in buying yellowcake, although the Iraqi officials never mentioned yellowcake and made no effort to buy any. This irrelevant point has been a centerpiece of Republican attacks on Wilson and is now being recycled by the Washington Post."]
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Little Lee-Lee Happy At Last?
From Crooks & Liars, an apology that recently ran in The New Republican:
An Apology to Our Readers
After an investigation, The New Republic has determined that the comments in our Talkback section defending Lee Siegel's articles and blog under the username "sprezzatura" were produced with Siegel's participation. We deeply regret misleading our readers. Lee Siegel's blog will no longer be published by TNR, and he has been suspended from writing for the magazine…
Our first thought was, "Who knew The New Republican had a sense of humor!" "Our readers"? They crack us up. "Our readers"? Both of them. They should have just mentioned the last two holdouts by name.
We've noted Little Lee-Lee here before. Flashback with us now to December 15, 2005:
Jess: A broader examination that goes beyond an individual or a party and deals with the press itself. Both the mainstream and a rag like The New Republic that wants to claim it's of the left.
My parents are longterm subscribers of The Nation but they are very offended that New Republic writers are popping up. My mother says they're seriously questioning whether they will renew because she knows the comment Maria posted elsewhere about how Camille Paglia won praise in The Nation and she read that and wondered about it, read the issue. Now that she knows that the writer of that piece works for The New Republic, she's started looking at other bylines. The New Republic is not a left magazine and The Nation shouldn't be propping it up.
C.I.: Just to clarify, the review, by Lee Siegel, I believe, was not praising Paglia's new book. It was, however, in panning the new book, offering kind words for the infamous book that deserves no praise and received none from The Nation in real time. Considering that Susan Faludi is listed on the masthead, that Gloria Steinem appears in ads for the magazine and that Katha Pollitt, among many other feminists, has been attacked by Paglia, I found Seigel's evaluation of the infamous book revisionist and insulting. They've added Dave Zirin to their online edition and hopefully they'll be addressing the issue of reviewers but I agree with your mother, Jess, The New Republic does not belong in The Nation. The magazines are too different, their readership is too different -- for one thing, The Nation has a readership -- and when you invite those people over, you end up with reviews that are offensive.
Little Lee-Lee's getting a good bashing right about now. We won't defend him but we will chuckle and again make the point that there should be no 'crossing over' between The New Republican and The Nation. When you give people like that space, you're denying real writers on the left an outlet. No, we're not applying. But there are journalists struggling to make ends meet and the reality is that Little Lee-Lee had multiple outlets. There was no need to offer him space and money to bring his New Republican views into The Nation.
And note, all e-mails coming in defending Little Lee-Lee will be assumed to have been writing by Little Lee-Lee. With the suspension, he obviously has a great deal of time on his hands.
Little Lee-Lee has a book coming out, Falling upwards: essays in defense of the imagination and the title certainly describes his current situation. We intend to skip the book but look forward to reading the many, many reviews that will be posted on it at Amazon. With the suspension, he'll have plenty of time to think up noms de plum.
An Apology to Our Readers
After an investigation, The New Republic has determined that the comments in our Talkback section defending Lee Siegel's articles and blog under the username "sprezzatura" were produced with Siegel's participation. We deeply regret misleading our readers. Lee Siegel's blog will no longer be published by TNR, and he has been suspended from writing for the magazine…
Our first thought was, "Who knew The New Republican had a sense of humor!" "Our readers"? They crack us up. "Our readers"? Both of them. They should have just mentioned the last two holdouts by name.
We've noted Little Lee-Lee here before. Flashback with us now to December 15, 2005:
Jess: A broader examination that goes beyond an individual or a party and deals with the press itself. Both the mainstream and a rag like The New Republic that wants to claim it's of the left.
My parents are longterm subscribers of The Nation but they are very offended that New Republic writers are popping up. My mother says they're seriously questioning whether they will renew because she knows the comment Maria posted elsewhere about how Camille Paglia won praise in The Nation and she read that and wondered about it, read the issue. Now that she knows that the writer of that piece works for The New Republic, she's started looking at other bylines. The New Republic is not a left magazine and The Nation shouldn't be propping it up.
C.I.: Just to clarify, the review, by Lee Siegel, I believe, was not praising Paglia's new book. It was, however, in panning the new book, offering kind words for the infamous book that deserves no praise and received none from The Nation in real time. Considering that Susan Faludi is listed on the masthead, that Gloria Steinem appears in ads for the magazine and that Katha Pollitt, among many other feminists, has been attacked by Paglia, I found Seigel's evaluation of the infamous book revisionist and insulting. They've added Dave Zirin to their online edition and hopefully they'll be addressing the issue of reviewers but I agree with your mother, Jess, The New Republic does not belong in The Nation. The magazines are too different, their readership is too different -- for one thing, The Nation has a readership -- and when you invite those people over, you end up with reviews that are offensive.
Little Lee-Lee's getting a good bashing right about now. We won't defend him but we will chuckle and again make the point that there should be no 'crossing over' between The New Republican and The Nation. When you give people like that space, you're denying real writers on the left an outlet. No, we're not applying. But there are journalists struggling to make ends meet and the reality is that Little Lee-Lee had multiple outlets. There was no need to offer him space and money to bring his New Republican views into The Nation.
And note, all e-mails coming in defending Little Lee-Lee will be assumed to have been writing by Little Lee-Lee. With the suspension, he obviously has a great deal of time on his hands.
Little Lee-Lee has a book coming out, Falling upwards: essays in defense of the imagination and the title certainly describes his current situation. We intend to skip the book but look forward to reading the many, many reviews that will be posted on it at Amazon. With the suspension, he'll have plenty of time to think up noms de plum.
The Appeaser Rumsfeld
Who's the appeaser?
Donald Rumsfeld talked trash last week, characterizing critics of the illegal war and of the phoney war-on-terror as akin to those who would appease Hitler.
His trash talk was largely ignored as so many rushed in to give you a history lesson about WWII. If our teachers have put their chalk away, they might want to ask Donald Rumsfeld what the above was?
Photo from Paul Rockwell's "Partners in Crime: US Complicity in the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein" (Common Dreams). As Aretha might sing, "Take another look and tell me who's appeasing who?"
A note
To be quite frank with you, we weren't paying close attention to the time. We're unhappy with the edition that we had to finish (due to the print version). We'll pass on bits to Gina and Krista and they can include anything they like in their round-robin this coming Friday.
But items will be going up here. Give it time. Ava and C.I. are reviewing a different show than in the print version (their original review will go out in Friday's round-robin).
But items will be going up here. Give it time. Ava and C.I. are reviewing a different show than in the print version (their original review will go out in Friday's round-robin).
Sunday, August 27, 2006
A Note to Our Readers
Hey --
Doing this on Monday but dating it on Sunday so it archives with the rest.
We had three hours of trying to post but not being able to Sunday morning. Everything was written. We were tired and ready to go to sleep. But couldn't. We had three hours of nothing going up and then an hour to get the stuff up once we could post. Dona, C.I., Ava and Jess had already said, "We aren't doing a note after this, we're going to sleep."
So we're doing the note today.
Highlights? We got 'em:
Ruth's Report
NYT critique via The Common Ills
Humor Spotlight: Wally and Cedric on Practical Jokester Dick Cheney
Humor Spotlight: Betinna tells all about the return to NYC with Thomas Friedman
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca puts Bully Boy on the couch
Blog Spotlight: Mike examines the focus
Blog Spotlight: Kat addresses the potential end of an era
Blog Spotlight: Cedric on Bob Herbert & Juan Williams' blame game
Blog Spotlight: Elaine on the hit squad that tried to silence truth tellers
Kitchen Spotlight: Mixed Greens with Honey and Oranges in the Kitchen
Thank you to everyone for their permission to repost. And thank you to Dallas for his help in hunting down links and adding input.
New content? Got it. And the following worked on it:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ils);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
This edition, we again focused on Iraq. It wasn't as easy as the previous two because a number of people were exhausted. (Saturday was a busy day.) At one point, C.I. pointed out that we only had 1/2 an edition planned. Dona pointed out that we needed to put our thinking caps on because earlier in the week we had plenty of ideas, what were they?
We were also probably letting it slide because we knew there would be three features that would be very easy for 4 of the 6 of us.
Here's the new content:
In war and pain, 13 albums -- playlist, like CounterPunch does. This is what we listened to while we were working on the edition. And it was "pain" on this end. All listed above get credit for this (we all chose what to listen to during the writing).
How do you say, "We're abandoning the base in 24 hours"? -- The British abandoned a base in Iraq. It was quickly looted. The British military spokesperson tried to paint the abandoning in a flattering light. This is our feature on the sort of note that could have gone out announcing to the Iraqis it was being turned over. All above worked on this except Ava and C.I.
Books: Sadly from Paul Bremer, Every Picture Tells A Story -- This was done just by Kat, Ava, C.I., Dona, Jess, Ty, and me (Jim). C.I. had used the book early Saturday morning for an entry at The Common Ills. Ty was flipping through it, scanning some pages and then came to the photo section. Ty had the idea for this. Kat came up with the idea of opening with Rod Stewart.
All seven listed worked on this.
Courage to Resist's latest alert on Ehren Watada -- Courage to Resist worked on this. It's their's and we posted it as a PSA. Get the word out on Ehren Watada.
A public relations coup gone awry? -- All listed above worked on this. It was a tough one, believe it or not. Everyone was tired. After this one, we excused everyone not a part of the core six (Jess, Ty, Dona, Ava, C.I. and me, Jim) plus Kat (because she was physically present with us and not just on the phone) so that people could get some sleep.
How to be a print pundit -- We all worked on this one. This went through multiple revisions and if Dona hadn't screamed, "It's done" (literally, she screamed that), we'd still be working on it.
The tipping point was last summer. We noted it then. Only now can your pundits tell you that maybe the popular opinion has swung. Yeah, it did. Last summer. Get out from behind your desks and walk around in the real world.
It's not just Camilo Mejia, or Brandon Hughey, or Jeremy Hinzman, or Pablo Paredes, or . . . -- we like Carl Webb. We think he's shown real bravery repeatedly. Know his story, know his name, get the word out.
Denis Halliday said what? -- Couldn't get the word out on what Denis Halliday said because no press outlet covering the trial in real time bothered to note what he said. Read this and you'll have a good idea why he was rendered silent.
Editorial: If what Watada's standing up for matters, treat it like it matters -- Ehren Watada does matter, so you need to treat his stand like it matters. That doesn't mean you mention it once a month. Talk about it with every friend, every family member you have. Talk about it with strangers. Get the word out.
And? That's it. Actually it's not. And we wished we'd had this up when Belinda read. (Ty e-mailed her back.) She was really happy that Ava and C.I. did two TV commentaries this edition. Actually, they did three. The third doesn't show up on the main page. If we'd had our note up, Belinda would have known that.
TV: Vanishing -- I, Jim, asked them for this. Not for Vanished, but for a show that was on that would please their audience (the review, not the show). Why? I was really thinking we might be pushing it with three weeks in a row of Iraq and wanted to be sure that the "calling card" pleased the readers if nothing else did. (Ty says the response was positive to a third week of Iraq focusing.) They ended up tying it into Iraq, which they didn't have to. On our special editions, it may not always be possible for them to tie things into a theme we have for the rest of the edition. The hope was that if anyone thought, "Iraq again, for the whole edition?" -- they'd read this and think, "Well that was worth it."
TV: Make Room For Bully peters out -- Ava and C.I. greeted the request with, "We'll do Vanished." Then on Monday, Bully Boy held a press conference. I, Jim, said, "I know I just asked you for a feature but could we make it two?" They groaned. They were tired. And it was just Monday. They agreed they'd "try." "Try, no promises." We think this turned out very well. (We is not Ava and C.I. who are both griping, right now, about everything they wrote.)
TV: Washington Weak -- Blame this on Rebecca's husband Fly Boy. He called them to alert them to this show. They ended up watching with over the phone. Ava and C.I. provided a running commentary that had him laughing. Kat walked past them and started laughing. Slowly we all came in to check out what had Kat in hysterics and we were laughing as well. Come on, said Jim, you can probably do three? Saturday evening we started the edition. They were tired. They were sleepy. They couldn't do one. "You'll be lucky if you get one." "Stop bugging us or we're bailing." "If you ask us one more damn time, Jim, we are going to . . ." It was a long night. They were tired before a word was written. We were going to be happy with anything. We weren't expecting much because they kept yawning and saying they were tired. They surprised us with each one. Vanished had us laughing. Bully Boy had us laughing. Then came this one (with a threat of bodily harm if they're ever asked to do more than one again) and we think this is actually the funniest one of all. ("Great," says C.I. "Now we're in competition with ourselves and one came in first and one came in last, with one in the middle, the low-middle I'm sure." No, they're all wonderful. But this is our favorite.) The show's Washington Week and the review is hilarious. We probably wasted 20 minutes we should have been working talking about this after we read it.
And? That's it. We'll see you next weekend.
--Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Doing this on Monday but dating it on Sunday so it archives with the rest.
We had three hours of trying to post but not being able to Sunday morning. Everything was written. We were tired and ready to go to sleep. But couldn't. We had three hours of nothing going up and then an hour to get the stuff up once we could post. Dona, C.I., Ava and Jess had already said, "We aren't doing a note after this, we're going to sleep."
So we're doing the note today.
Highlights? We got 'em:
Ruth's Report
NYT critique via The Common Ills
Humor Spotlight: Wally and Cedric on Practical Jokester Dick Cheney
Humor Spotlight: Betinna tells all about the return to NYC with Thomas Friedman
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca puts Bully Boy on the couch
Blog Spotlight: Mike examines the focus
Blog Spotlight: Kat addresses the potential end of an era
Blog Spotlight: Cedric on Bob Herbert & Juan Williams' blame game
Blog Spotlight: Elaine on the hit squad that tried to silence truth tellers
Kitchen Spotlight: Mixed Greens with Honey and Oranges in the Kitchen
Thank you to everyone for their permission to repost. And thank you to Dallas for his help in hunting down links and adding input.
New content? Got it. And the following worked on it:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and, me, Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ils);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot
This edition, we again focused on Iraq. It wasn't as easy as the previous two because a number of people were exhausted. (Saturday was a busy day.) At one point, C.I. pointed out that we only had 1/2 an edition planned. Dona pointed out that we needed to put our thinking caps on because earlier in the week we had plenty of ideas, what were they?
We were also probably letting it slide because we knew there would be three features that would be very easy for 4 of the 6 of us.
Here's the new content:
In war and pain, 13 albums -- playlist, like CounterPunch does. This is what we listened to while we were working on the edition. And it was "pain" on this end. All listed above get credit for this (we all chose what to listen to during the writing).
How do you say, "We're abandoning the base in 24 hours"? -- The British abandoned a base in Iraq. It was quickly looted. The British military spokesperson tried to paint the abandoning in a flattering light. This is our feature on the sort of note that could have gone out announcing to the Iraqis it was being turned over. All above worked on this except Ava and C.I.
Books: Sadly from Paul Bremer, Every Picture Tells A Story -- This was done just by Kat, Ava, C.I., Dona, Jess, Ty, and me (Jim). C.I. had used the book early Saturday morning for an entry at The Common Ills. Ty was flipping through it, scanning some pages and then came to the photo section. Ty had the idea for this. Kat came up with the idea of opening with Rod Stewart.
All seven listed worked on this.
Courage to Resist's latest alert on Ehren Watada -- Courage to Resist worked on this. It's their's and we posted it as a PSA. Get the word out on Ehren Watada.
A public relations coup gone awry? -- All listed above worked on this. It was a tough one, believe it or not. Everyone was tired. After this one, we excused everyone not a part of the core six (Jess, Ty, Dona, Ava, C.I. and me, Jim) plus Kat (because she was physically present with us and not just on the phone) so that people could get some sleep.
How to be a print pundit -- We all worked on this one. This went through multiple revisions and if Dona hadn't screamed, "It's done" (literally, she screamed that), we'd still be working on it.
The tipping point was last summer. We noted it then. Only now can your pundits tell you that maybe the popular opinion has swung. Yeah, it did. Last summer. Get out from behind your desks and walk around in the real world.
It's not just Camilo Mejia, or Brandon Hughey, or Jeremy Hinzman, or Pablo Paredes, or . . . -- we like Carl Webb. We think he's shown real bravery repeatedly. Know his story, know his name, get the word out.
Denis Halliday said what? -- Couldn't get the word out on what Denis Halliday said because no press outlet covering the trial in real time bothered to note what he said. Read this and you'll have a good idea why he was rendered silent.
Editorial: If what Watada's standing up for matters, treat it like it matters -- Ehren Watada does matter, so you need to treat his stand like it matters. That doesn't mean you mention it once a month. Talk about it with every friend, every family member you have. Talk about it with strangers. Get the word out.
And? That's it. Actually it's not. And we wished we'd had this up when Belinda read. (Ty e-mailed her back.) She was really happy that Ava and C.I. did two TV commentaries this edition. Actually, they did three. The third doesn't show up on the main page. If we'd had our note up, Belinda would have known that.
TV: Vanishing -- I, Jim, asked them for this. Not for Vanished, but for a show that was on that would please their audience (the review, not the show). Why? I was really thinking we might be pushing it with three weeks in a row of Iraq and wanted to be sure that the "calling card" pleased the readers if nothing else did. (Ty says the response was positive to a third week of Iraq focusing.) They ended up tying it into Iraq, which they didn't have to. On our special editions, it may not always be possible for them to tie things into a theme we have for the rest of the edition. The hope was that if anyone thought, "Iraq again, for the whole edition?" -- they'd read this and think, "Well that was worth it."
TV: Make Room For Bully peters out -- Ava and C.I. greeted the request with, "We'll do Vanished." Then on Monday, Bully Boy held a press conference. I, Jim, said, "I know I just asked you for a feature but could we make it two?" They groaned. They were tired. And it was just Monday. They agreed they'd "try." "Try, no promises." We think this turned out very well. (We is not Ava and C.I. who are both griping, right now, about everything they wrote.)
TV: Washington Weak -- Blame this on Rebecca's husband Fly Boy. He called them to alert them to this show. They ended up watching with over the phone. Ava and C.I. provided a running commentary that had him laughing. Kat walked past them and started laughing. Slowly we all came in to check out what had Kat in hysterics and we were laughing as well. Come on, said Jim, you can probably do three? Saturday evening we started the edition. They were tired. They were sleepy. They couldn't do one. "You'll be lucky if you get one." "Stop bugging us or we're bailing." "If you ask us one more damn time, Jim, we are going to . . ." It was a long night. They were tired before a word was written. We were going to be happy with anything. We weren't expecting much because they kept yawning and saying they were tired. They surprised us with each one. Vanished had us laughing. Bully Boy had us laughing. Then came this one (with a threat of bodily harm if they're ever asked to do more than one again) and we think this is actually the funniest one of all. ("Great," says C.I. "Now we're in competition with ourselves and one came in first and one came in last, with one in the middle, the low-middle I'm sure." No, they're all wonderful. But this is our favorite.) The show's Washington Week and the review is hilarious. We probably wasted 20 minutes we should have been working talking about this after we read it.
And? That's it. We'll see you next weekend.
--Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: If what Watada's standing up for matters, treat it like it matters
Ehren Watada, the story independent media bungled. For instance, right now, online, you can find a link to a San Francisco Chronicle article. The link reads: "War refuser Bob Watada faces seven years in prison -- and his dad couldn't be prouder 8/27."
You catch the problem, right? Bob Watada isn't facing up to seven years in prison. We're not aware that Bob Watada's father is even alive (though he may be). Bob Watada is the father of Ehren Watada and it's a sign of how bad the coverage of Ehren Watada has been that a biggie of a site could offer a headline about "War refuser Bob Watada".
Ehren Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He announced that decision at the start of June. Because he was an officer, because he was saying the war was illegal and because independent media either still cared about the Iraq war then or still felt the need to pretend to care, Ehren Watada got coverage.
And then?
When he needed it most, he dropped from the radar. An Article 32 hearing was scheduled for August 17th and that was known well ahead of time. The weekend before the hearing, he was in Seattle, at the Veterans for Peace conference, and he gave a speech. It was a pretty important speech, so important that the prosecution would use snippets from it to make a case against him.
So you might assume that independent media would be all over the story, broadcasting the speech, dissecting the speech, discussing the speech. You would be wrong.
There was no time for it. There was no time to heads up the August 16th demonstrations in support of Watada around the country. And the day after, August 17th, when his court martial started, there was no time then to note the turnout at the demonstrations. No time for the August 17th hearing (it started hearing testimony that day and it concluded hearing testimony that day). No time to cover the testimony of the witnesses Watada's attorneys called (Francis Boyle, international law expert; Denis Halliday, former UN Undersecretary-General; and Ann Wright, retired Army Col.). Friday, August 18th, there still wasn't time.
On Tuesday, August 22nd, a program finally wanted to 'weigh in' on Watada. In three sentences that gave you the impression that they were reporting on something that just happened. Three charges? Oh my gosh. If Watada has three charges against him and you're informing us Tuesday, that must mean that a finding has been reached in the Article 32 hearing!
Nope. Just someone trying to do damage control after ignoring Watada for weeks -- and insisting upon reporting charges from July as though they were 'breaking.'
Thursday night of last week, a military flack announced that the finding/recommendation would be released the following day but that Watada was being passed up the chain of command with the recommendation that a court-martial take place.
On Friday, the report was released and the response from independent media was underwhelming.
Some independent journalists have made an effort. Among the few: Jeff Paterson, Sarah Olson, Philip Maldari, Dennis Bernstein, Judith Scheer. On KPFA's The Morning Show Wednesday, Maldari actually interviewed Bob Watada. Bob Watada was on a speaking tour that began August 17th, speaking out for his son, trying to raise awareness.
In a summer that saw Cindy Sheehan largely ignored by independent media, it may not be a surprise that Ehren Watada would suffer the same fate. There's a lot of lip service given to the notion that soldiers should refuse to serve in an illegal war. Lip service is all it is to judge by the lack of coverage.
Watada refused to serve. He stated his reasons quite well. His father and his mother (Carolyn Ho) have put themselves out there to the public. They're supporting their sons decision, they're speaking out. Imagine how powerful that message could be . . . if it got out there.
Today, Bob Watada will be speaking, from four to six pm PST, at the AFSC building on 65-Ninth Street in San Francisco.
From Charles Burress' "BAY AREA War refuser's dad explains son's reasons" (San Francisco Chronicle):
Bob Watada is proud of his newly famous, and infamous, son. And he's making 26 public appearances this week to tell Bay Area audiences why.
The son is said to be the Army's first commissioned officer to refuse to go to Iraq, on the grounds that he's bound to disobey orders to fight in an illegal war.
[. . .]
Watada's father, who retired in December as executive director of Hawaii's election-spending watchdog agency, the Campaign Spending Commission, said his son heeded Bush's call to join the war on terrorism and entered the military in March 2003, the same month the United States invaded Iraq. He began active duty in June that year, after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University.
The son discovered only later that Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction were myths, the father said.
Another piece of coverage from the mainstream media which has been the only media to consistently cover Watada over the last three weeks.
If what Watada's standing up for matters, then it needs to be treated like it matters.
Where will our brave indepedent media being rush off to this week? For most, it appears (and has for almost two, or in some cases, three months now) that Iraq just can't hold their interest.
The forces wanting bloodshed in Darfur are back at play and, goodness, didn't the 'brave' voices line up to give that play. We don't have to offer an alternative on non-military ways to address Darfur -- that's because we addressed it months ago. But (military) boots on the ground are obviously more important than anything else -- otherwise some of the many outlets condemning Israel for, five, six, seven weeks, would find time to note that Israel has been refusing refugees from Darfur.
As independent media rushes to hop on the Save Darfur bandwagon (to prove how much they can bleed or just to work off some war lust that they've had to push down deep while covering the illegal war on Iraq?), we've noticed who gets invited to the table on the supposed discussions that independent media allows. We've also noticed who doesn't get invited to the table. For instance Joshua Frank. From his conclusion to "Save Darfur?" (CounterPunch):
There are other reasons we ought not act on all of our humanitarian impulses, however well intentioned they may seem. Unlike Darfur, we've got wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan that actually involve us. In fact, we are responsible for them. Want to help bring peace to the Middle East? Why not pressure the U.S. government to halt all funding to Israel? That'd be a heck of a start.
There are atrocities for which the U.S. government is culpable, but Darfur isn't one of them. So don't jump on the Save Darfur bandwagon it may only lead to more devastation.
While some rush to prove how the depth of their humanitarian impulses, their humanity, and just how much they can bleed (by advocating boots on the ground) in Darfur, a lot in independent media ignore Iraq. In fact, it's apparently going to be fashionable among some to brag about how little they care. As Ava and C.I. point out this edition, Andrea Grimes brags of how she's shed more tears of the fictional 'romance' of two characters on Grey's Anatomy than she has over "the thousands" who've died "overseas," "in the Middle East." What a prize she must be. We can't call her heartless because she obviously cares . . . about fictional charaters on a crappy show. Grimey's got her priorities.
What are your priorities?
If Ehren Watada matters to you, if the war in Iraq matters you, then you need to be getting the word out on Ehren Watada. As Mike has noted, the majority of independent media have demonstrated in the last few weeks that we can't count on them to do it.
For more on Ehren Watada, you can check out Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org.
For historical context, you can check out David Ziegler's Sir! No Sir! (we reviewed it here in "DVD Must See: Sir! No! Sir!").
You catch the problem, right? Bob Watada isn't facing up to seven years in prison. We're not aware that Bob Watada's father is even alive (though he may be). Bob Watada is the father of Ehren Watada and it's a sign of how bad the coverage of Ehren Watada has been that a biggie of a site could offer a headline about "War refuser Bob Watada".
Ehren Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. He announced that decision at the start of June. Because he was an officer, because he was saying the war was illegal and because independent media either still cared about the Iraq war then or still felt the need to pretend to care, Ehren Watada got coverage.
And then?
When he needed it most, he dropped from the radar. An Article 32 hearing was scheduled for August 17th and that was known well ahead of time. The weekend before the hearing, he was in Seattle, at the Veterans for Peace conference, and he gave a speech. It was a pretty important speech, so important that the prosecution would use snippets from it to make a case against him.
So you might assume that independent media would be all over the story, broadcasting the speech, dissecting the speech, discussing the speech. You would be wrong.
There was no time for it. There was no time to heads up the August 16th demonstrations in support of Watada around the country. And the day after, August 17th, when his court martial started, there was no time then to note the turnout at the demonstrations. No time for the August 17th hearing (it started hearing testimony that day and it concluded hearing testimony that day). No time to cover the testimony of the witnesses Watada's attorneys called (Francis Boyle, international law expert; Denis Halliday, former UN Undersecretary-General; and Ann Wright, retired Army Col.). Friday, August 18th, there still wasn't time.
On Tuesday, August 22nd, a program finally wanted to 'weigh in' on Watada. In three sentences that gave you the impression that they were reporting on something that just happened. Three charges? Oh my gosh. If Watada has three charges against him and you're informing us Tuesday, that must mean that a finding has been reached in the Article 32 hearing!
Nope. Just someone trying to do damage control after ignoring Watada for weeks -- and insisting upon reporting charges from July as though they were 'breaking.'
Thursday night of last week, a military flack announced that the finding/recommendation would be released the following day but that Watada was being passed up the chain of command with the recommendation that a court-martial take place.
On Friday, the report was released and the response from independent media was underwhelming.
Some independent journalists have made an effort. Among the few: Jeff Paterson, Sarah Olson, Philip Maldari, Dennis Bernstein, Judith Scheer. On KPFA's The Morning Show Wednesday, Maldari actually interviewed Bob Watada. Bob Watada was on a speaking tour that began August 17th, speaking out for his son, trying to raise awareness.
In a summer that saw Cindy Sheehan largely ignored by independent media, it may not be a surprise that Ehren Watada would suffer the same fate. There's a lot of lip service given to the notion that soldiers should refuse to serve in an illegal war. Lip service is all it is to judge by the lack of coverage.
Watada refused to serve. He stated his reasons quite well. His father and his mother (Carolyn Ho) have put themselves out there to the public. They're supporting their sons decision, they're speaking out. Imagine how powerful that message could be . . . if it got out there.
Today, Bob Watada will be speaking, from four to six pm PST, at the AFSC building on 65-Ninth Street in San Francisco.
From Charles Burress' "BAY AREA War refuser's dad explains son's reasons" (San Francisco Chronicle):
Bob Watada is proud of his newly famous, and infamous, son. And he's making 26 public appearances this week to tell Bay Area audiences why.
The son is said to be the Army's first commissioned officer to refuse to go to Iraq, on the grounds that he's bound to disobey orders to fight in an illegal war.
[. . .]
Watada's father, who retired in December as executive director of Hawaii's election-spending watchdog agency, the Campaign Spending Commission, said his son heeded Bush's call to join the war on terrorism and entered the military in March 2003, the same month the United States invaded Iraq. He began active duty in June that year, after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University.
The son discovered only later that Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction were myths, the father said.
Another piece of coverage from the mainstream media which has been the only media to consistently cover Watada over the last three weeks.
If what Watada's standing up for matters, then it needs to be treated like it matters.
Where will our brave indepedent media being rush off to this week? For most, it appears (and has for almost two, or in some cases, three months now) that Iraq just can't hold their interest.
The forces wanting bloodshed in Darfur are back at play and, goodness, didn't the 'brave' voices line up to give that play. We don't have to offer an alternative on non-military ways to address Darfur -- that's because we addressed it months ago. But (military) boots on the ground are obviously more important than anything else -- otherwise some of the many outlets condemning Israel for, five, six, seven weeks, would find time to note that Israel has been refusing refugees from Darfur.
As independent media rushes to hop on the Save Darfur bandwagon (to prove how much they can bleed or just to work off some war lust that they've had to push down deep while covering the illegal war on Iraq?), we've noticed who gets invited to the table on the supposed discussions that independent media allows. We've also noticed who doesn't get invited to the table. For instance Joshua Frank. From his conclusion to "Save Darfur?" (CounterPunch):
There are other reasons we ought not act on all of our humanitarian impulses, however well intentioned they may seem. Unlike Darfur, we've got wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan that actually involve us. In fact, we are responsible for them. Want to help bring peace to the Middle East? Why not pressure the U.S. government to halt all funding to Israel? That'd be a heck of a start.
There are atrocities for which the U.S. government is culpable, but Darfur isn't one of them. So don't jump on the Save Darfur bandwagon it may only lead to more devastation.
While some rush to prove how the depth of their humanitarian impulses, their humanity, and just how much they can bleed (by advocating boots on the ground) in Darfur, a lot in independent media ignore Iraq. In fact, it's apparently going to be fashionable among some to brag about how little they care. As Ava and C.I. point out this edition, Andrea Grimes brags of how she's shed more tears of the fictional 'romance' of two characters on Grey's Anatomy than she has over "the thousands" who've died "overseas," "in the Middle East." What a prize she must be. We can't call her heartless because she obviously cares . . . about fictional charaters on a crappy show. Grimey's got her priorities.
What are your priorities?
If Ehren Watada matters to you, if the war in Iraq matters you, then you need to be getting the word out on Ehren Watada. As Mike has noted, the majority of independent media have demonstrated in the last few weeks that we can't count on them to do it.
For more on Ehren Watada, you can check out Courage to Resist and ThankYouLt.org.
For historical context, you can check out David Ziegler's Sir! No Sir! (we reviewed it here in "DVD Must See: Sir! No! Sir!").
TV: Washington Weak
Once a week, PBS airs Washington Week aka Washington Weak. (Air date and time varies from market to market). The show stars Gwen Ifell who suffers from many things including a surname that sounds like a follow up hit for A Flock of Seagulls. As a result, we tried not to hold it against her that she's such an obvious aficionado of the TV series Family Affair that her chosen hairstyle is a clear homage to Mrs. Beasley.
Ifell is famous for many things including once remarking that the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame by people in the administration was "only a summer scandal." Fortunately for Ifell, accuracy isn't a big thing in the gas bag biz so she remains not only still employed but also still the star/host of the show. We wouldn't call her a "moderator" and we'll get to the why of that in a bit.
Let's instead turn to some real news: Nancy Walker Lives!
And she's apparently raided Rhoda Morgenstern's jewelry box!
How else do you explain Bloomberg's Janine Zacharia who favors the right side of her mouth when speaking and apparently mistook herself for a Christmas tree and jewelry for ornaments? While some might see the ear rings alone as 'over done,' Janine demonstrates that "tacky" is a foreign concept and piles on an equally ridiculous necklace (with ten 'charms' on the chain). We kept expecting her to turn to the camera and explain that, for just $19.95, the costume jewelry could be delivered to your home in four-to-six weeks.
Wearing a 'funky' Rhoda-like sweater, Janine got a healthy chunk of air time and, in fact, the first segment was more or less a free-association monologue for her as she rambled on about Hizbollah and Lebanon. Fortunately for her, all the mavins accepted the premise that Israel's motives were pure and just and filled, as Joni Mitchell once put it, "with fantasy and fairies, rainbows and butterscotch."
That's because even conventional wisdom is a reach for Washington Weak. Instead, the guests follow the host's lead and kibitz for a half-hour. Anything more than simple patter leaves Gwen feeling and looking all fartootsteh -- like the time, a few years back, when she infamously attempted to weigh in, on air, about the First Amendment and got it so wrong that a guest dared to correct her leading to (and remember this airs on PBS) her laughable reply of "Well, whatever it says . . ."
Last week's show (or today/night's depending upon when it airs in your market) found Gwen surrounded by the types she likes: folks eager to editorialize and opine. The much maligned (oft deservedly so) Elisabeth Bumiller earned herself a scowl and exile from Gwen when she refused to offer speculation while discussing the Bully Boy's alleged National Guard service. The hint seems to have taken and all panelists now eagerly race to prove that they can offer so much more than just facts.
The big stars this week were Gwen (of course Gwen, it's always Gwen!), Janine and the Bobble Head Pundit -- from The New York Times, Helene Cooper. Did she think she was on Springer and attempting to stay loose for the head roll? Who knows? And who knows what Helene said most of the time? Watching her head dip and bob, weave and thrust on every word, we were mesmerized by the swaying earrings she appeared to have borrowed from Polly Holiday back when Holiday played Flo. There were three tiers to those earrings. Exactly who costumed Helene? And if this passes for professional dress at The Times these days, color us shocked.
Not to be outdone, Gwen Ifell went for matching slivers on her ears and around her neck. The choice must have been very taxing for Gwen -- which would explain her confusion when she attempted to note Bully Boy's comment from last Monday about the effects of the Iraq war on the country: "These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that." Gwen phrased it thusly: "He said . . . he understands that the nation's psyche is kind of bruised -- it's not the word he used, but kind of". Kind of always passes for 'good enough' on Washington Weak.
While most might assume that a host should be prepared with the quotes she plans to note, Gwen settles for "kind of". (There is a word that follows 'kind of' and repeated attempts to decipher the word she squeals -- her voice rises and rises -- were unsuccessful. Lots of luck to the transcriptionist who posts at the show's website on Monday.)
The Iraq discussion was as trivial as everything else on the show (and we hope our review has treated the program with all the seriousness it treated the issues). A clip was shown of the Bully Boy stating "We're not leaving so long as I'm president" which led to Gwen questioning Janine about "what did the president's response tell us about what the president was really thinking?"
Damn determined to haul The Nancy Walker Show out of mothballs, Janine opened with, "He's really thinking that we're going to be there for a long time!" as she seemed to look around in anticpation of a drum roll or canned laughter. (Neither were provided.)
Gwen then turned to Helene who was so busy head bobbing and gesticulating that she must have lost her already loose grip on common sense. That would explain Helene's declaration that "so many American are getting tired of seeing these soldiers coming home dead." Seeing them where, Helene? Seeing them where?
There's a ban at Dover, so exactly where are most Americans "seeing these soldiers coming home dead"? Shortly after that, Helene almost inadvertantly struck Janine (who did flinch) while she was gesturing.
There were four guests and let's note the other two. Paul Singer (National Journal) and David Wessel (Wall St. Journal).
David, please, buy a suit that fits. He looked as though he'd borrowed David Byrne's suit from Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense tour. And let's point out the obvious, that beard doesn't convey maturity; instead it makes him look as though he's starring in Teen Wolf . . . Blitzer.
Paul would do well to learn that his body language must accompany his words. Not only did he demonstrate a lack of rhythm when he clapped his hands but he also illustrated some cognitive challenge when the phrase he was using was "snap the fingers." You do that with a finger and thumb, Paul, not by clapping together two hands.
Paul also suffered from an askew tie that looked like a clip-on and from a tendency to hold his breath whenever anyone asked him a question. (Considering how wordy they can all be, we feared Paul might pass out.) We'd also suggest that, although shaving isn't the requirement for Paul that it is for some males, he'd still be better off shaving before going on television.
If it seems like the guys aren't getting much focus, they aren't. And that's largely due to the fact that the segments they monologued in (each guest got one segment to monologue in) were the two shortest (together they didn't even add up to ten minutes). One of the segments was on the housing market and Helene felt the need to inquire: "So David, at the risk of sounding like I only care about what is happening in my neighborhood, is this localized or is it national?"
After David answers (the south's the only region that's doing well), Gwen can't resist the urge to prove that she's the Orson Bean of the newsy set by interjecting, "For the record, Helene really does only care about what happens in her neighborhood." It's those sorts of little bits that lead us to refrain from calling her a "moderator."
We're supposed to laugh, we're supposed to chuckle. But the biggest laugh was yet to come because David dared to ask, "And you?" To which Gwen replied, full of sarcasm, "No, I care about everyone."
Oh the zingers. Oh the wit. Oh the 'observations' which couldn't even pass for superficial.
The newsy show ended on a note that struck us as even more real than Gwen's laughable, facetious claim to "care about everyone." It ended with Gwen grabbing her glass as the guests grabbed their's. Gwen clinked glasses with Paul and soon everyone was clinking glasses. But, silly Gwen, no one took a sip because no toast had been delivered.
As the voice over plugs were going on, we could see Gwen giving a toast and, finally, they all took a sip. Seems as though everything got plugged except the most obvious one: "Jewelry provided by the Joan Rivers Collection." We fear she also scripted some of the zingers.
All in all, it was a very weak week.
Ifell is famous for many things including once remarking that the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame by people in the administration was "only a summer scandal." Fortunately for Ifell, accuracy isn't a big thing in the gas bag biz so she remains not only still employed but also still the star/host of the show. We wouldn't call her a "moderator" and we'll get to the why of that in a bit.
Let's instead turn to some real news: Nancy Walker Lives!
And she's apparently raided Rhoda Morgenstern's jewelry box!
How else do you explain Bloomberg's Janine Zacharia who favors the right side of her mouth when speaking and apparently mistook herself for a Christmas tree and jewelry for ornaments? While some might see the ear rings alone as 'over done,' Janine demonstrates that "tacky" is a foreign concept and piles on an equally ridiculous necklace (with ten 'charms' on the chain). We kept expecting her to turn to the camera and explain that, for just $19.95, the costume jewelry could be delivered to your home in four-to-six weeks.
Wearing a 'funky' Rhoda-like sweater, Janine got a healthy chunk of air time and, in fact, the first segment was more or less a free-association monologue for her as she rambled on about Hizbollah and Lebanon. Fortunately for her, all the mavins accepted the premise that Israel's motives were pure and just and filled, as Joni Mitchell once put it, "with fantasy and fairies, rainbows and butterscotch."
That's because even conventional wisdom is a reach for Washington Weak. Instead, the guests follow the host's lead and kibitz for a half-hour. Anything more than simple patter leaves Gwen feeling and looking all fartootsteh -- like the time, a few years back, when she infamously attempted to weigh in, on air, about the First Amendment and got it so wrong that a guest dared to correct her leading to (and remember this airs on PBS) her laughable reply of "Well, whatever it says . . ."
Last week's show (or today/night's depending upon when it airs in your market) found Gwen surrounded by the types she likes: folks eager to editorialize and opine. The much maligned (oft deservedly so) Elisabeth Bumiller earned herself a scowl and exile from Gwen when she refused to offer speculation while discussing the Bully Boy's alleged National Guard service. The hint seems to have taken and all panelists now eagerly race to prove that they can offer so much more than just facts.
The big stars this week were Gwen (of course Gwen, it's always Gwen!), Janine and the Bobble Head Pundit -- from The New York Times, Helene Cooper. Did she think she was on Springer and attempting to stay loose for the head roll? Who knows? And who knows what Helene said most of the time? Watching her head dip and bob, weave and thrust on every word, we were mesmerized by the swaying earrings she appeared to have borrowed from Polly Holiday back when Holiday played Flo. There were three tiers to those earrings. Exactly who costumed Helene? And if this passes for professional dress at The Times these days, color us shocked.
Not to be outdone, Gwen Ifell went for matching slivers on her ears and around her neck. The choice must have been very taxing for Gwen -- which would explain her confusion when she attempted to note Bully Boy's comment from last Monday about the effects of the Iraq war on the country: "These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country. I understand that." Gwen phrased it thusly: "He said . . . he understands that the nation's psyche is kind of bruised -- it's not the word he used, but kind of". Kind of always passes for 'good enough' on Washington Weak.
While most might assume that a host should be prepared with the quotes she plans to note, Gwen settles for "kind of". (There is a word that follows 'kind of' and repeated attempts to decipher the word she squeals -- her voice rises and rises -- were unsuccessful. Lots of luck to the transcriptionist who posts at the show's website on Monday.)
The Iraq discussion was as trivial as everything else on the show (and we hope our review has treated the program with all the seriousness it treated the issues). A clip was shown of the Bully Boy stating "We're not leaving so long as I'm president" which led to Gwen questioning Janine about "what did the president's response tell us about what the president was really thinking?"
Damn determined to haul The Nancy Walker Show out of mothballs, Janine opened with, "He's really thinking that we're going to be there for a long time!" as she seemed to look around in anticpation of a drum roll or canned laughter. (Neither were provided.)
Gwen then turned to Helene who was so busy head bobbing and gesticulating that she must have lost her already loose grip on common sense. That would explain Helene's declaration that "so many American are getting tired of seeing these soldiers coming home dead." Seeing them where, Helene? Seeing them where?
There's a ban at Dover, so exactly where are most Americans "seeing these soldiers coming home dead"? Shortly after that, Helene almost inadvertantly struck Janine (who did flinch) while she was gesturing.
There were four guests and let's note the other two. Paul Singer (National Journal) and David Wessel (Wall St. Journal).
David, please, buy a suit that fits. He looked as though he'd borrowed David Byrne's suit from Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense tour. And let's point out the obvious, that beard doesn't convey maturity; instead it makes him look as though he's starring in Teen Wolf . . . Blitzer.
Paul would do well to learn that his body language must accompany his words. Not only did he demonstrate a lack of rhythm when he clapped his hands but he also illustrated some cognitive challenge when the phrase he was using was "snap the fingers." You do that with a finger and thumb, Paul, not by clapping together two hands.
Paul also suffered from an askew tie that looked like a clip-on and from a tendency to hold his breath whenever anyone asked him a question. (Considering how wordy they can all be, we feared Paul might pass out.) We'd also suggest that, although shaving isn't the requirement for Paul that it is for some males, he'd still be better off shaving before going on television.
If it seems like the guys aren't getting much focus, they aren't. And that's largely due to the fact that the segments they monologued in (each guest got one segment to monologue in) were the two shortest (together they didn't even add up to ten minutes). One of the segments was on the housing market and Helene felt the need to inquire: "So David, at the risk of sounding like I only care about what is happening in my neighborhood, is this localized or is it national?"
After David answers (the south's the only region that's doing well), Gwen can't resist the urge to prove that she's the Orson Bean of the newsy set by interjecting, "For the record, Helene really does only care about what happens in her neighborhood." It's those sorts of little bits that lead us to refrain from calling her a "moderator."
We're supposed to laugh, we're supposed to chuckle. But the biggest laugh was yet to come because David dared to ask, "And you?" To which Gwen replied, full of sarcasm, "No, I care about everyone."
Oh the zingers. Oh the wit. Oh the 'observations' which couldn't even pass for superficial.
The newsy show ended on a note that struck us as even more real than Gwen's laughable, facetious claim to "care about everyone." It ended with Gwen grabbing her glass as the guests grabbed their's. Gwen clinked glasses with Paul and soon everyone was clinking glasses. But, silly Gwen, no one took a sip because no toast had been delivered.
As the voice over plugs were going on, we could see Gwen giving a toast and, finally, they all took a sip. Seems as though everything got plugged except the most obvious one: "Jewelry provided by the Joan Rivers Collection." We fear she also scripted some of the zingers.
All in all, it was a very weak week.
Denis Halliday said what?
In the coverage of the August 17th Article 32 hearing on Ehren Watada's refusal to depoly to Iraq, one thing was consistently missing: What did former UN Assistant Secretary General UN Denis Halliday say in his testimony?
His name was frequently mentioned in the press coverage along with former Army Col. Ann Wright and law progessor and international law expert Francis A. Boyle. While a pull quote from the latter two frequently made it into the coverage, Halliday was never quoted.
As C.I. noted in "Walking Through Watada (Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing)": "Halliday's testimony was apparently delivered via mime which would explain why there's nothing from his testimony in any of the reports."
Exactly one week later (this past Friday, August 25th), Halliday would finally be pull quoted, by Sarah Olson, as follows:
Denis Halliday is the former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations. During Lieutenant Watada's Article 32 hearing, Halliday was called to testify regarding the impact of war on the Iraqi people. "The people of Iraq had become used to living under very difficult conditions after the destruction in the name of the United Nations by the United States of the civilian infrastructure, water supplies, sewer systems, electric power, use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs."
Halliday was prevented from providing complete testimony when the investigating officer presiding over the Article 32 hearing ruled that the "consequences of the war or the situation on the ground" were irrelevant to Lieutenant Watada's argument that the war was illegal and that he had an obligation to refuse to fight it.
You read that correctly, "Halliday was prevented from providing complete testimony". And the media wasn't interested because most weren't aware.
Last Sunday, in "Iraq, the war independent media forgot," we wrote:
Among the three people testifying for Watada was former UN sectretary Denis Halliday. What did he say? As C.I. noted, "Halliday's testimony was apparently delivered via mime which would explain why there's nothing from his testimony in any of the reports." Ann Wright's testimony was covered as was Francis Boyle's (Boyle is a professor at the University of Illionis and a scholar in international law). When two reporters (mainstream) who covered the trial were asked about the Halliday blackout (and it was a blackout) the excuse offered was that Boyle and Wright were deemed more worthy because Wright was former military and Boyle was an expert. Going to where the silences are would include independent media covering what the mainstream blacked out (Halliday's testimony).
Olson becomes the first (and only thus far) reporter to note that Halliday's testimony "was prevented." Apparently sharing the sentiments of puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) who recently decreed that the Iraqi media must, simply must, stop showing the reality of the violence on TV screens, Lt. Col. Mark Keith (presiding over the Article 32 hearing) agreed with the prosecution ("Trial counsel") that Halliday's focus on life on the ground in Iraq wasn't worthy of noting. Later last week, the United States media, the few that had covered Iraq in the last six to seven weeks, appeared to agree with al-Maliki that, if we all just looked the other way, the chaos and violence on the ground wouldn't exist.
Does it matter what happens on the ground? We'd argue it does. We'd argue it did from the start but only more so, when the WMD lies weren't working, as the administration began offering that the invasion was done to 'liberate' Iraqis and spread 'democracy' (from the end of a gun barrel). But the "Trial Counsel objected to the line of questioning" and Keith "ruled that the consequences of the war or the situation on the ground did not have any bearing". How does the reality on the ground (the reality that the illegal invasion has only bred chaos and violence throughout its three years) have no bearing on an officer's refusal to take part in the ongoing, illegal war?
In Ruth's Report, Ruth addressed Ann Wright's testimony and we urge to read that. But we also urge to read what Denis Halliday testified to. From the official report (with typos -- we mean their typos but we're sure we've added our own), here is what the media ignored in real time.
After leaving college in 1962 I was a British volunteer in East Africa. I joined the UN in 1964, worked in Iran, Southeast Asia, New York and ended my career back in New York in 1998.
I worked for the United Nation's Development program for most of my career. That is an aid program. After that I became a member of the UN Secretariat. The Secretary General appointed me as Assistant Secretary General for human resources. I held that job in NY and then went to Iraq. In Iraq, I was the Chief of the Humanitarian Program in Iraq. After leaving the UN, the first thing I did was a Congressional Briefing in Washington.
My initial experience in Iraq was in 1997. I went there in the end of August to take up the post of Humanitarian Chief and I stayed there until October 1998. I have also been back to Iraq five or six times since than. The last time was in Feburary 2003, right before the invasion .
I was asked to go there by The Institute for Public Accuracy. They sponsored my trip to talk to government people about changing policy to adjust there behavior to make it hopeful that the invasion wouldn't take place.
I was nominated along with Kathy Kelly an American who heads Voices in the Wilderness for the Nobel Peace Prize. I also received an honorary degree from Swathmore University for the work that I had done for the UN and the International Gandy Peace Prize.
The UN peace charter is a very specific document. Article 2 very definitely rules out any use of aggression of force and military action against soverign states. Chapter 7, articles 39, 40, 41 and 42 it rules out any sort of military action without the approval of the Security Council.
All of these parts relate to the invasion, pre-emptive strike if you wish against Iraq. No, the United States did not comply with its obligation under the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. It never obtained a suitable resolution under Article 42 of Chapter 7.
To my knowledge there was not a rationale for defense but that would have been covered by Article 51.
No, it was not permissible for the United States to engage in military action against Iraq under the UN Charter.
No, that fact has not changed in the last 3 years, continuing an act of aggression which is a violation of international law does not get any better over time.
There is no effective provision that the UN Security Council can take when faced with one of the five permanent members who stands in violation of international law under the charter. This is a failure of the charter which goes back to its very origins.
This failure allows the United Nations to be controlled and dominated by the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, in early 2003 that was anticipation that the attack would take place. They knew about the US Military's preparations with their air craft carriers in the Gulf. They knew about the failed attempts to put together a coalition as the first President Bush had done. My interest there was to go and talk with some of the ministers and see if they could make some adjustments that would make it more difficult for Mr. Bush to justify the invasion.
The people of Iraq had become used to living under very difficult conditions after the destruction in the name of the United Nations by the United States of the civilian infrastructure, water supplies, sewer systems, electric power, use of deplete uranium and cluster bombs. All of this was very much in the minds of Iraqi people. Because of this they were extremely concerned about the health and survival of their families.
I spoke with the Minister of Health and asked him what he was doing about the water supplies in anticipation of another attack on the civilian infrastructure. In response he said he has authorize people to drill wells in their gardens. When I asked him what he was doing about the use of depleted uranium he replied that there was nothing he could do.
Trial Counsel objected to the line of questioning based on relevancy of questions and how they relate to 1LT Watada's deployment.
The Defense Counsel stated that earlier they spoke about the commission of war crimes during the course of the war. [Note: During Francis Boyle's testimony.] Now we are talking about the devastating effects that the war has had on the population.
The Investigating Officer [Lt. Col. Mark Keith] ruled that the consequences of the war or the situation on the ground did not have any bearing on the facts or the problem of what 1LT Watada's decision was.
CROSS EXAMINATION
[Responses to] Questions by Trial Counsel:
To my knowledge there are not any actions or resolutions pending right now that would stop the current conflict.
I would question the statement that right now Iraq is a soverign country. The UN does recognize Iraq right now as a sovereign country.
The government of Iraq today was assembled under occupation which raises a large question for many within the United Nations. The fact that the government has invited the United States to assist in Iraq is the status quo.
His name was frequently mentioned in the press coverage along with former Army Col. Ann Wright and law progessor and international law expert Francis A. Boyle. While a pull quote from the latter two frequently made it into the coverage, Halliday was never quoted.
As C.I. noted in "Walking Through Watada (Ehren Watada's Article 32 hearing)": "Halliday's testimony was apparently delivered via mime which would explain why there's nothing from his testimony in any of the reports."
Exactly one week later (this past Friday, August 25th), Halliday would finally be pull quoted, by Sarah Olson, as follows:
Denis Halliday is the former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations. During Lieutenant Watada's Article 32 hearing, Halliday was called to testify regarding the impact of war on the Iraqi people. "The people of Iraq had become used to living under very difficult conditions after the destruction in the name of the United Nations by the United States of the civilian infrastructure, water supplies, sewer systems, electric power, use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs."
Halliday was prevented from providing complete testimony when the investigating officer presiding over the Article 32 hearing ruled that the "consequences of the war or the situation on the ground" were irrelevant to Lieutenant Watada's argument that the war was illegal and that he had an obligation to refuse to fight it.
You read that correctly, "Halliday was prevented from providing complete testimony". And the media wasn't interested because most weren't aware.
Last Sunday, in "Iraq, the war independent media forgot," we wrote:
Among the three people testifying for Watada was former UN sectretary Denis Halliday. What did he say? As C.I. noted, "Halliday's testimony was apparently delivered via mime which would explain why there's nothing from his testimony in any of the reports." Ann Wright's testimony was covered as was Francis Boyle's (Boyle is a professor at the University of Illionis and a scholar in international law). When two reporters (mainstream) who covered the trial were asked about the Halliday blackout (and it was a blackout) the excuse offered was that Boyle and Wright were deemed more worthy because Wright was former military and Boyle was an expert. Going to where the silences are would include independent media covering what the mainstream blacked out (Halliday's testimony).
Olson becomes the first (and only thus far) reporter to note that Halliday's testimony "was prevented." Apparently sharing the sentiments of puppet of the occupation (Nouri al-Maliki) who recently decreed that the Iraqi media must, simply must, stop showing the reality of the violence on TV screens, Lt. Col. Mark Keith (presiding over the Article 32 hearing) agreed with the prosecution ("Trial counsel") that Halliday's focus on life on the ground in Iraq wasn't worthy of noting. Later last week, the United States media, the few that had covered Iraq in the last six to seven weeks, appeared to agree with al-Maliki that, if we all just looked the other way, the chaos and violence on the ground wouldn't exist.
Does it matter what happens on the ground? We'd argue it does. We'd argue it did from the start but only more so, when the WMD lies weren't working, as the administration began offering that the invasion was done to 'liberate' Iraqis and spread 'democracy' (from the end of a gun barrel). But the "Trial Counsel objected to the line of questioning" and Keith "ruled that the consequences of the war or the situation on the ground did not have any bearing". How does the reality on the ground (the reality that the illegal invasion has only bred chaos and violence throughout its three years) have no bearing on an officer's refusal to take part in the ongoing, illegal war?
In Ruth's Report, Ruth addressed Ann Wright's testimony and we urge to read that. But we also urge to read what Denis Halliday testified to. From the official report (with typos -- we mean their typos but we're sure we've added our own), here is what the media ignored in real time.
After leaving college in 1962 I was a British volunteer in East Africa. I joined the UN in 1964, worked in Iran, Southeast Asia, New York and ended my career back in New York in 1998.
I worked for the United Nation's Development program for most of my career. That is an aid program. After that I became a member of the UN Secretariat. The Secretary General appointed me as Assistant Secretary General for human resources. I held that job in NY and then went to Iraq. In Iraq, I was the Chief of the Humanitarian Program in Iraq. After leaving the UN, the first thing I did was a Congressional Briefing in Washington.
My initial experience in Iraq was in 1997. I went there in the end of August to take up the post of Humanitarian Chief and I stayed there until October 1998. I have also been back to Iraq five or six times since than. The last time was in Feburary 2003, right before the invasion .
I was asked to go there by The Institute for Public Accuracy. They sponsored my trip to talk to government people about changing policy to adjust there behavior to make it hopeful that the invasion wouldn't take place.
I was nominated along with Kathy Kelly an American who heads Voices in the Wilderness for the Nobel Peace Prize. I also received an honorary degree from Swathmore University for the work that I had done for the UN and the International Gandy Peace Prize.
The UN peace charter is a very specific document. Article 2 very definitely rules out any use of aggression of force and military action against soverign states. Chapter 7, articles 39, 40, 41 and 42 it rules out any sort of military action without the approval of the Security Council.
All of these parts relate to the invasion, pre-emptive strike if you wish against Iraq. No, the United States did not comply with its obligation under the UN Charter when it invaded Iraq. It never obtained a suitable resolution under Article 42 of Chapter 7.
To my knowledge there was not a rationale for defense but that would have been covered by Article 51.
No, it was not permissible for the United States to engage in military action against Iraq under the UN Charter.
No, that fact has not changed in the last 3 years, continuing an act of aggression which is a violation of international law does not get any better over time.
There is no effective provision that the UN Security Council can take when faced with one of the five permanent members who stands in violation of international law under the charter. This is a failure of the charter which goes back to its very origins.
This failure allows the United Nations to be controlled and dominated by the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, in early 2003 that was anticipation that the attack would take place. They knew about the US Military's preparations with their air craft carriers in the Gulf. They knew about the failed attempts to put together a coalition as the first President Bush had done. My interest there was to go and talk with some of the ministers and see if they could make some adjustments that would make it more difficult for Mr. Bush to justify the invasion.
The people of Iraq had become used to living under very difficult conditions after the destruction in the name of the United Nations by the United States of the civilian infrastructure, water supplies, sewer systems, electric power, use of deplete uranium and cluster bombs. All of this was very much in the minds of Iraqi people. Because of this they were extremely concerned about the health and survival of their families.
I spoke with the Minister of Health and asked him what he was doing about the water supplies in anticipation of another attack on the civilian infrastructure. In response he said he has authorize people to drill wells in their gardens. When I asked him what he was doing about the use of depleted uranium he replied that there was nothing he could do.
Trial Counsel objected to the line of questioning based on relevancy of questions and how they relate to 1LT Watada's deployment.
The Defense Counsel stated that earlier they spoke about the commission of war crimes during the course of the war. [Note: During Francis Boyle's testimony.] Now we are talking about the devastating effects that the war has had on the population.
The Investigating Officer [Lt. Col. Mark Keith] ruled that the consequences of the war or the situation on the ground did not have any bearing on the facts or the problem of what 1LT Watada's decision was.
CROSS EXAMINATION
[Responses to] Questions by Trial Counsel:
To my knowledge there are not any actions or resolutions pending right now that would stop the current conflict.
I would question the statement that right now Iraq is a soverign country. The UN does recognize Iraq right now as a sovereign country.
The government of Iraq today was assembled under occupation which raises a large question for many within the United Nations. The fact that the government has invited the United States to assist in Iraq is the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
